DeSmog Leaks Advance Copy of Think Tank's IPCC Attack
UPDATED: with details of the Fraser Institute's planned press conference
The Fraser Institute will release their report in London on Feb.5. Here are the details for our UK friends who might be interested in attending:
Date: February 5, 2007
Time: 10am (London time)
Location: The Atrium Restaurant (across from the Houses of Parliament), Four Millbank, Westminster
UPDATE: I've just uploaded a new version of the briefing note, without hyperlinks for those who want to print off a copy. Titled "print version." (KG)
Fraser Institute “Analysis” of IPCC Report Out of Date, Oil-Soaked and Incorrect
A Canadian think tank’s “independent” analysis of the upcoming IPCC report is based on out-of-date information and is specifically misleading about the nature of the scientific summary that it presumes to criticize, DeSmogBlog.com President James Hoggan said Wednesday. The Fraser Institute had planned to release their report Feb.5, at a press conference in the United Kingdom.
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
Dr. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis and a lead IPCC author, called the Independent Summary “highly ideological.” While the Fraser Institute summary says, "There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway," Weaver counters: “The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point.”
Weaver also criticized the Fraser Institute’s contention that climate change may not be happening or that if it is happening, it may be “a good or bad thing.”
Finally, Weaver pointed out that the whole Fraser Institute analysis is based on a document that is almost a year out of date. “I was most surprised that this analysis was written based on our second draft” (released in Spring 2006), said Weaver. “We incorporated changes in response to well over 1,000 reviewrs' comments before preparing a final draft last fall.”
A complete copy of the Fraser Institute report is attached below.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| draft fraser institute report IPCC small.pdf | 1.22 MB |
| DeSmogBlog note on the fraser institute.pdf | 197.58 KB |
| Fraser Inst Press Release.pdf | 33.97 KB |
| Print version DeSmog fraser institute briefing note.pdf | 177.49 KB |
| ONE PAGE VERSION Fraser Inst Press Release.pdf | 37.13 KB |
...perpetrated by scientists who hate America, socialists who want grant money, and Europeans who want to redistribute the world's wealth.
There. Are we ok now?
Seriously: I think the sceptics are feeling very, very alone and alienated right now. Just leave them in their misery.
Here"s some recent Wente Posts we have done:
And Margaret Wente: Facts make me itchy
Margaret Wente's Climate Conversion: From Denial to Despair
Climate Change: It's Just Too Difficult, Darling ...
link. link. at http://utenti.lycos.it/asutpeeg/ | link. link. at http://utenti.lycos.it/riayniay | link. link. at http://utenti.lycos.it/riayniay | link. link. at http://utenti.lycos.it/bizoga | link. link. at http://utenti.lycos.it/riayniay |
Yes Kevin where are they?
Thats a big question.
Article Directory
but we get tired of being right all the time.
But if you insist on having a fact, try this: Not one factual or scientific argument, only ad hominem attacks. That is the entire scope of your criticsm of desmogblog. Pathetic.
What kind of substance do you want? This is a discussion, and we're discussing our opinions about the Fraser Institute and what a bunch of crazy ideologues they are. We're free to do that. No one's claiming they're "always right", and no one has claimed to know the "truth". We're sharing our opinions and if you don't like that, you can go somewhere else to play.
Your response indicates that you are either not interested in the truth or are too lazy to do any research. However, I on your behalf did the work (about 30 seconds using google).
From the UCS website
"However, government representatives do participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the much shorter summary for policymakers, or SPM, for each technical report. The SPM is written by the working group’s lead authors, reviewed in two stages by technical experts, and finally by government representatives before being accepted at the working group’s plenary session. Each SPM is released separately over the course of several months."
SPM means summary for policy makers not by policymakers. They do, however, get the opprotunity to review the summary. Which seem fair.
More on the AR4 process can be found at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html#IPCC_Structure
I see no ad hominen on this thread only justifable contempt.
Johan, there are several real arguments in the comments directly above the one in which you said real arguments are entirely absent. There are also several links to other sources with real arguments that you have not addressed. And if the FI receives funding from Exxon, that most certainly is relevant information to desmogblog's thesis.
Johan, you can't or won't address the real arguments that have been presented to you. You haven't advanced any "real arguments" of your own. You've made no attempt at fair argumentation. You can go on saying that black is white and up is down, but sooner or later you'll be confronted with one inescapable reality:
You're a pseudo-skeptical troll with no defensible position of your own and only take a sick pleasure in namecalling and taunting people with the courage to take up real positions on a matter of great import to us all. Proud?
J I K you are obviously not a scientist. Scientists are (or used to be before some turned to a lesser but older profession) one of the most honest groups of people around. Funny that the only link you could post contained two of the most dishonest people around, Lindzen and Inhofe.
And in case you didn't see the programme with Nye and Lindzen, it was Lindzen that offered the bet, a bet that he had better honour since he was so obviously wrong in his statement that the ice-core data had less than a 2000 year resolution. I'm sure he knew better but was of the opinion that he could fool the audience and Larry King.
J I K, why did you bring up Exxon, I never mentioned them? Was it a case of if the shoe fits wear it?
I have no problems with people who have differing opinions than mine. What I disagree with totally is when these people distort the truth.
You keep bringing up the subject of ad hominems in just about everyone of your posts. I would suggest that you find out what it atually means since I have not see any actual ad hominems in this whole thread.
Wow! Can we have this ad hominem argument one more time please (sarcasm). Sorry, Johan, but when we discredit an argument here on DeSmog by pointing to their vested interests (i.e. funding from ExxonMobil) it is not Ad Hominem, it is context important to the public discourse.